At 03:41 PM 11/21/02 +0100, Jeremy Carroll wrote: >Anyone understand freenet? > >As far as I understand freenet URIs have an owner, who often wishes to >remain anonymous. (Hence the use of freenet). > >Thus, putting too much weight on URIs having an authoritative owner may put >RDF on the side of centralist big corporate against the more anarchic p2p >freedom loving hackers. > >As far as I can see, freenet URIs could be made to work within the framework >of authoritative statements, since essentially a freenet URI is a URL and so >the authoritative statement of what a freenet URI means is the content that >can be retrieved from that URL, if any. This is reminiscent of something TimBL said in rebuttal of a comment I made... that naming authority really should be backed up by some definitive retrieval mechanism, preferably online. I guess that freenet provides that in this case, and that is the only way to find the authority's intent. #g ------------------- Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>Received on Monday, 25 November 2002 09:35:50 EST
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:54:09 EDT